Republican from Michigan tries to silence Ron Paul

[Ardentfrost]

MLive.com: Everything Michigan

Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates
5/16/2007, 7:07 p.m. EDT
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said.

Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."

After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end his campaign.

"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position," Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."

This is incredible. I mean.... it's hard to even formulate a response. Is this how scared of him they are?

[lew]

His office got so flooded with calls that they stopped answering phones and their email servers crashed

[Scrum]

Yeah, what a shame Ron Paul can't be a nice little Republican and say "they hate us for our freedom".

[Thorgrim]

As I've said in the past, Mike Gravel accused the front runners of being scary people who want to use nuclear weapons on behalf of israel...he didn't get banned nor is there any attempt to ban him

Democrats tolerate different views much better

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

As I've said in the past, Mike Gravel accused the front runners of being scary people who want to use nuclear weapons on behalf of israel...he didn't get banned nor is there any attempt to ban him

Democrats tolerate different views much better

Because they tolerated Liebermann so nicely.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Because they tolerated Liebermann so nicely.

Big difference between not tolerating someone and not supporting them.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Big difference between not tolerating someone and not supporting them.

Uhhh...republicans primary challege too...remember Specter winning by about half a percentage point in 2004, and 2006 we had Chaffee behind in the polls until there was a massive money dump

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Big difference between not tolerating someone and not supporting them.

Point taken.

[thomez]

"the establishment" wants nothing to do with Ron Paul... I think we will see more and more this is the case and every opportunity to make him appear illegitimate will be maximized...

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by lew

His office got so flooded with calls that they stopped answering phones and their email servers crashed

Good!


As much as I did not like the remarks I will defend his right to say them as a candidate!

How dumb of this Republican!

[avsp]

It seems incredible to me that Pauls remarks are seen as very inflamatory by any mainstream figures at all.

[kinggovernor]

what is the point of a debate if you have only like-minded people on stage

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what is the point of a debate if you have only like-minded people on stage

Not toeing the party line?

Do you have party whipping over there, I assume so.

Is there any question of throwing him out of the party?

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by avsp

Not toeing the party line?

Do you have party whipping over there, I assume so.

Is there any question of throwing him out of the party?

We do have party whipping here. It's generally confined to on-the-floor House of Representatives business: a "party whip" will actually go door to door visiting congressmen to make sure they know what they're voting on, and how the party would like to see them vote.

As for throwing him out of the party, it'd be a stretch. If absolutely nothing else, Republicans are probably at least dimly aware that to ostracize someone for not falling perfectly into ranks would mean curtains for the GOP, at least for a while. The vast majority of the country is tired of the war in Iraq. Republicans are struggling at this point to find enough common ground that they can all stand within the same party lines, the war is quite a divisive subject.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what is the point of a debate if you have only like-minded people on stage

Not much!


Who has the best hair?

[7th Ninjai]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Good!


As much as I did not like the remarks I will defend his right to say them as a candidate!

How dumb of this Republican!

You don't think our foreign policy has negative consequences?

I found the most offensive comment in the debate (other than Giuliani's emotional rebuttal to Paul's correct statement) to be from Romney. He stated he believed in the second amendment but also supported the 'assault weapons' ban

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Not much!


Who has the best hair?

That explains why Clinton is doing so well. Female hair is intrinsically better than male hair. She wins by default amongst like-minded people.

You're so insightful.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

You don't think our foreign policy has negative consequences?

I found the most offensive comment in the debate (other than Giuliani's emotional rebuttal to Paul's correct statement) to be from Romney. He stated he believed in the second amendment but also supported the 'assault weapons' ban

What Paul said was factually accurate. He did not say anything out of line, or anything that was based on a "hunch" or a "feeling."

Whenever the president, Dick Cheney, or John McCain wants to argue that terrorists will come to America if we leave Iraq too early, they point us to Bin Laden's words as proof of their point. That's what Paul was doing when he made his comment about 9/11. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?" he said. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Here's just one instance, from 1996, in which Bin Laden in one of his declarations of war said exactly what Paul claims: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime, are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, whatever treaty you have with our country is now null and void."

http://www.slate.com/id/2165673/

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

You don't think our foreign policy has negative consequences?

I am not to sure what you are talking about? Certainly not Iraq. We are talking about what we were doing before and up to 9/11/2001. Did those policies make everybody in the world happy? No, and what obligation is there that they should? Al Qaeda does not represent any Nation/State. Nor is it any democratic elected leadership. Do you or Ron Paul suggest we cave to any roving gang of thugs or else? Play isolationist in the Middle East with the exception of most genereous trade and foreign aid? Let Israel twist in the wind until those who want them all dead can make that a reality? I hope not or you don't get my vote!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

What Paul said was factually accurate. He did not say anything out of line, or anything that was based on a "hunch" or a "feeling."

Whenever the president, Dick Cheney, or John McCain wants to argue that terrorists will come to America if we leave Iraq too early, they point us to Bin Laden's words as proof of their point. That's what Paul was doing when he made his comment about 9/11. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?" he said. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Here's just one instance, from 1996, in which Bin Laden in one of his declarations of war said exactly what Paul claims: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime, are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, whatever treaty you have with our country is now null and void."

http://www.slate.com/id/2165673/

I think there is a misunderstanding here? I don't think Rudy or anyobody suggested Bin Laden did not have such motives. It does not make such motives justifiable! Do you really think we were responcible for the starving children in Iraq while Saddam installed gold plating on his many mansions? Are the lives of those starving Iraqi's worth less that the children of Kurds poisoned to death by his biological bombs? If a Presidential Candidate gets their moral cues from Osama Bin Laden I don't know what to expect next!